Mark Berman and Jeremy Roebuck at WP:
Justice Department lawyers defending the Trump administration’s policies are encountering mounting criticism and frustration from federal judges, a sign of deepening tension between the executive branch and courts weighing its aggressive uses of power.
In recent hearings and rulings, judges appointed by presidents of both parties have criticized the statements and behavior of administration officials, accusing them of defying court orders, submitting flimsy evidence, providing inadequate answers to questions and even acting like toddlers.
The cases involve lawsuits challenging everything from President Donald Trump’s push to increase deportations to his efforts to punish law firms. Most are in the early stages of litigation. But the judicial pushback suggests a break from the goodwill courts have traditionally shown toward assertions by government lawyers.
The “deference that judges would give to attorneys from Main Justice is evaporating,” said John E. Jones III, a former federal judge in Pennsylvania appointed to the bench by President George W. Bush. Justice Department lawyers, he added, have “lost a fair measure of their credibility.”
At a hearing in D.C. last week about law firms, U.S. District Judge John D. Bates seemed unimpressed by some of the Justice Department lawyer’s answers, responding at one point: “Oh, give me a break.”
U.S. District Judge Beryl A. Howell was similarly skeptical Friday as she ruled Trump’s actions against a different law firm were unconstitutional, writing that Justice Department lawyer Richard Lawson, “when asked, was unable to fill in basic details” about the sanctions.
In Virginia, a judge scoffed at evidence the government offered in an immigration case in March to claim one couple were members of a violent gang. “I expect more from the government than this kind of very shoddy work,” U.S. District Judge Leonie M. Brinkema told the Justice Department lawyer, adding that if it were a criminal case, “I’d throw you out of my chambers.”
